Name : Vikas Shinde

Division: B ; Roll no. : 108

Group : TC
Subject : Research Methodology
Topic : Judgement (Content )Analysis

Mr. 'X' Vs. Hospital 'Z' on 21 September, 1998

1. Introduction:The case is related to the Right to privacy which is guaranteed under Art.21of the
Indian Constitution. The case is also related to the Principle of Duty to care as
applicable to the person in Medical profession includes the duty to maintain
confidentiality. The Code of Medical ethics states ethics to the medical person to be
followed in his profession. The Code of Medical ethics described the duty of the doctor
one of them one includes the duty of Doctor to keep the information of patient confidential
and not to disclose to any person even after the death of the patient. In this case the
appellant is suffering from the HIV (+), appellant proposed to marry to Ms, Y and
respondent i.e. Hospital z without the consent of the appellant discloses the information
which results into the marriage was called off. Therefor appellant filed the petition before
the Supreme Court for compensation.
2. History of case:The appellant approaches to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
for damages against the respondent, on the ground that the information which was
required to be kept secret under Medical ethics was disclosed illegally and, therefore, the
respondent was liable to pay damages. The Commission dismissed the Petition as also the
application for interim relief summarily by order dated 3rd July, 1998 on the ground that
the appellant may seek his remedy in the civil Court. The petitioner as right file appeal
before Supreme Court.

3. Fact of Case:The Appellants blood was to be transfused to another and therefore a sample thereof
was taken at the Respondents Hospital. The Appellant was found to be H.I.V.(+). On account
of disclosure of the fact that the Appellant was H.I.V.(+) by the Hospital authorities without
the express consent of the Appellant, the Appellants proposed marriage to Ms Y which had
earlier been accepted, was called off. Moreover, the Appellant was severely criticized and
was also ostracized by the community to such an extent that he had to leave is place of work
and residence and shift to a new city. The Appellant approached the National Consumer
Dispute Redressal Commission for damages against the Respondents on account of injury
and damages suffered to him because of disclosure of information required to be kept secret
under medical ethics by the Hospital authorities. The Commission however dismissed the
complaint on the ground that the Appellant could seek his remedy in the Civil Court. The
Appellant thus appeared before the Supreme Court contending that the principle of Duty of
care applicable to persons in medical profession included the Duty to maintain confidentiality
and the said duty had a correlative right vested in the patient that whatever came to the
knowledge of the doctor would not be divulged. The Appellant contended that for violating
the above duty as well as the Appellants right to privacy, the Respondents were liable to pay
damages.
4. Issued framed by court:i. Whether the respondents were guilty of violating their duty to maintain secrecy
under medical Ethics?
ii. Whether the respondents were guilty of violating the appellate right to privacy
guaranteed under Art. 21 of the constitution?
5. Contention of Parties:The council for appellate contended that the, principle of" "duty of care" as applicable
to persons in medical profession includes the duty to maintain confidentiality and since this
duty was violated by the respondents, they are liable in damages to the appellant . Duty to
maintain confidentiality has its origin in the Hippocratic Oath, which is an ethical code
attributed to the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, adopted as a guide to conduct by the
medical profession throughout the ages and still used in the graduation ceremonies of many

medical schools and colleges. Therefore the respondent is violated the oath and liable to pay
the damages.
It is also contended that doctors duty to maintain secrecy has a correlative right
vested in the patient that whatever has come to the knowledge of doctor would not be
disclose to any other person without permission of appellant i.e. patient.
It was also contended that the appellant's right of privacy has been infringed by the
respondents by disclosing the appellant was HIV (+) and, therefore, they are liable in
damages.
6. Judgement:In deciding the first issue, the court held that the duty of the duty to maintain secrecy
in every doctor-patient relationship was also not absolute and such duty could be broken and
hence secret divulged where compelling public interest so requires. Hence court held that the
respondent not guilty of violating the any ethics. The court further held that the appellant
right to marry was suspended until complete cure of the appellant dreadful diseases. The
court also held that in the event the court also deciding to marry while suffering from
dreadful diseases, he shall be punishable under sec. 269 & 270 of I.P.C. The court also held
that the Hippocratic oath taken by medical men at the time of entering profession in the court
of law as it lacks statutory force.
In deciding second issue the court held that, in the event of conflict between the
appellants fundamental right to privacy and Ms Y fundamental right to be informed about
my threat to her health, in such an event the latters right to be informed will override the
appellants right to privacy. Hence court held the respondent is not guilty of an offence right to
violate privacy. Hence the appeal without merit and is consequently dismissed.
7. Court Analysis:The court while deciding the case, analysis the various cases referred by the parties
during the argument. The issue regarding the Right to privacy the party referred the cases
regarding the in Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1963 SC 1295 that police
surveillance of a person by domiciliary visits would be violates of Article 21 of the
Constitution. This decision was considered by Mathew, J. in his classic judgement in Gobind
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (1975), 2 SCC 148, in which the origin of "right to
privacy" was traced and a number of American decisions. The court by considering the
above cases and also analysis British government decision regarding the Right to privacy.
The court also referred the international covenants for the 1 st issue and held that the by
disclosing the information the respondent is not violate the code of ethics.

The court

considers the interest of public at large not the any single individual and cant not assist the
appellant to achieve the object.
8. Author Analysis:In this case the decision given by the supreme court is correct and agree with the
decision of the court. The in regard to marriage, the every Act related to the marriage say
about the venerable disease in a communicable form for eg. The S.13 (1) of the Hindu
marriage Act, 1955 talks about ground for Divorce and any of them i.e. husband or wife
suffered from venerable diseases the this the ground for divorce. The same ground specified
in the others Act such special Marriage Act, Parsi Divorce Act etc. on this ground the
Supreme court give the its judgment in the first issue. In the second issue regarding the
Right to Privacy the appellant has right to life under Art. 21 includes right to privacy but
also the Ms Y also has right to life includes right to healthy life. In this situation the right of
Ms. Y prevails because in this case Right which would advance the public morality or
public interest. In this case the court considers the moral principles for deciding the judgment.
9. Conclusion:In this case the appellant claimed that his Right to Privacy was infringed. It is true
that that the right life includes the Right to Privacy but there also exception to it such as the
Privacy is affected the public interest. This case is also falls under this exception. The
appellant also claimed that respondent violated the code of ethics i.e. disclose the patient
information without his consent but this has also exception that the in the interest of public it
is the duty of doctor to disclose the information which is the risk for the health care of others.